Published Articles

[ad#righthandside-tall]While mass surveillance and the permanent abolishment of people’s rights in the United States come as no surprise after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 2001, it may be surprising to some that the politics of fear is now latest fashion all over the world. Even in countries that are utterly insignificant in international politics, and so “neutral” that terrorists would never even think of such places as possible targets, politicians play the same game to gain full and immediate support for increasing their powers.

Even in Sweden, a country known to be so faithfully “neutral” that it does not engage in conflict and rather take the side of totalitarians to avoid getting dragged into diplomatic hardship, politicians are using the “threat” of terrorism to instate mass surveillance of the state’s serfs people. In an article published today I tell the story of the political game played by both sides of the “aisle” to have a law enacted, which gives a military-run agency the right – no the responsibility – to go through all people’s communications.

In the case of Sweden it is obvious that the media has no role. If this political game had been played 20 or 30 years ago no one in Sweden would have heard anything about it until years after the law was passed. The media is not interested in such reporting that can truly hurt government, since the media’s sole source of “information” is government itself. You cannot bite the hand that feeds you for long without starving.

The discussion in Sweden, and the reason people are upset about the new surveillance scheme, is solely a result of private bloggers digging up facts, interviewing people, and analyzing public statements as well as behind the scenes talk and events. The “blogosphere” has made the mass surveillance of Swedish citizens by “its own” government news, and now the media – reluctantly – is following its lead.  To the politicians’ chagrin.

Whereas the Swedish government is undoubtedly trying to take the lead in surveillance and “security” issues in Europe, currently a political realm dominated by the United Kingdom, it is but a few steps ahead of the pan-European body of political rule: the European Union. While the Swedish government has now enacted a law that makes the privacy of anyone in Sweden the property of its military defense, the European Union will soon call for national legislation to further strengthen the State’s and Super-national organization’s hold on people’s lives. Surveillance is the first step, now comes international cooperation and a European “situation center” with access to all national data and with the implicit power to do whatever it feels like all over Europe and beyond.

The European Union is indeed a politicians’ project to make Europe even uglier than the United States, and they are not far from succeeding.

As has been pointed out by bloggers, the law recently passed in parliament is only the first step towards a fully Orwellian society. It is not the case that we “might” be heading that way and it is also not the case that a State with total control of its people will emerge from this: it has already emerged. What we are currently seeing is but the friendly face of government that is necessary to gain people’s acceptance before it unleashes all of its powers. Just like in the United States, where the federal government has effectively stripped people of all notion of having rights, they do not use it yet in order to make people feel that “it wasn’t so bad” and that the whistleblowers were wrong “again.” It will soon be time for government to use the powers it has formally given itself.

There is no doubt which side won the Cold War in terms of values: the Soviet Union may have disappeared, but the States of the so-called “free” West have adopted almost all of its policies. The “land of the free” has even publicly announced that they have their own Gulag on a military base in Cuba, and with the full-scale surveillance and secret police forces all over North America and Europe it will soon be impossible to claim that the freedoms and rights formulated during the Enlightenment have survived the 20th century. They have not, and people are bound to find out sooner or later.

For more information, see my articles On The War on Terrorism Brings Mass Surveillance – In Sweden and The Endarkening.

[ad]In an article published today on LewRockwell.com I discuss the implications of the inflation statistic often used in economics research. As I argue, it is not only the case that the statistic doesn’t show the whole extent of the problem–it is also the case that the inflation statistic used in economics research necessarily benefits the State. As scientists supposedly with expertise in how the market works, how could it be the case that they use a definition of a [non]market phenomenon that without question benefits the entity that is known to disrupt and cause problems in the market?

One possible answer has to do with how and why economics evolved from a theorizing social science to a math-dependent natural science wannabe pseudo-science. As the story is often told, economics became a solely calculus-based “science” during the time of world wars. Prior to this period the common understanding of economics was that it would not be possible to exactly foresee how people would act; rather, the task of economics was to explain why we see certain phenomena arise in the unhampered marketplace.

At the time of war the neglectedy minority proposing to calculate human action the same way the law-based movement of atoms or molecules were hired by the State to find efficient ways to use resources and transport equipment. In a time of artificial shortages in most markets these economists were relied on to find the super formula to make the most of what was still available–to calculate an optimum of consumption for the population so that the war machine could continue without interruption.

After World War II this bastard strain of economists had won the State’s approval and were therefore made “mainstream” in economics research through appointments in [public] universities and government agencies. Since that day what was previously real economics has been a suppressed and ill-conceived theoretical social science deemed “unscientific” due to its lack of exactness in calculations.

Whether this is what really happened to the economics profession or not is not relevant to the fact that economics since World War II is a theoretically ill-founded but calculus-driven social science pretending to be an exact natural science. It is also true that the economics profession like no other social science profession serves the State in numerous agencies and departments.

The State relies heavily on economics to say what the exact effect of certain scenarios or the enactment of certain policies will be. And as a result economists rely heavily on the State for their financial well-being as well as the prestige they have become accustomed to.

Asking the question “que bono?” (who benefits?) makes it easy to see that economists themselves would directly benefit from using definitions and theories that directly or indirectly makes the State look good. As a supposedly exact science, which at least manages to give exact answers to questions, known for not ever being right in its predictions, it wouldn’t make much of a difference if definitions and theories used were to benefit a certain party. After all, it is a win-win situation for economists–they still cannot provide a correct answer to the questions asked and will keep their prestigous jobs while the State that feeds them isn’t hurt “too much” by the numbers and explanations derived from them.

It is of course impossible to tell if this is the reason the commonly adopted definition of inflation is the mainstream’s “general price increase” while the Austrians’ definition of inflation as “increase in money supply” is neglected or ignored. In either case, the price increase definition effectively hides a large portion of the real inflation even if we adopt the mainstream understanding of the market. My article discusses the obvious propaganda ingredient in this false definition.

[ad]I have touched on this subject before, in the column Real and Fake Anarchism, but the duality of anarchism cannot be discussed enough. Just like some would say there may be parallel universes that are each other’s opposites, what is referred to as anarchism is both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Consulting any dictionary on the meaning of the word anarchism makes the confusion obvious, yet people seem to not take notice. This is what Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary says about the word “anarchy”

1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

It is fairly obvious that a and c go well together – they mean basically the same thing. b stands out as the “oddball” in the three-parted definition of “anarchy.” But b does seem to go well together with c through the word “utopian,” and also offers an “explanation” to the realized ideal in a.

I am not sure why the word “utopian” is necessarily a part of the definition of what the political theory of anarchism strives for. It seems “utopian” doesn’t add anything but the subjective assessment of this certain political theory’s validity, which is hardly a part of the word’s definition.

Nevertheless, Merriam-Webster doesn’t say that anarchy means chaos – only that it means “political disorder,” which is certainly true if “political” is interpreted as the organization of government. In anarchy there is no government, so such organization would definitely be “disorderly.”

A much more common definition of the word anarchy, where the contradiction is obvious, can be found in e.g. Microsoft’s Encarta:

an·ar·chy

noun

Definition

1. chaotic situation: a situation in which there is a total lack of organization or control

2. lack of government: the absence of any formal system of government in a society

Now this is very interesting, especially considering that the definition of “government” in Encarta is “political authority: a group of people who have the power to make and enforce laws for a country or area”. I guess without that “group of people” with “the power to make and enforce laws” the situation would indeed be chaotic.

The question is how people would react in a setting where no such group of people or their representatives are present. Say, in a school class, in a bus, in your apartment. Obviously a chaotic situation in desperate need for a “group of people who have the power.” So why don’t we all establish such power structures whenever we meet people?

The contradiction in the definition exists because there is no obvious link between the two separate definitions, and this makes the word ambiguous. Yet people seem to think there is only one definition of the word “anarchy” and that it always means “chaos” and “disorder.” And anarchists, they conclude, must of course strive for such chaos and disorder – that follows from the very word “anarchy.”

This is of course not true in any sense, unless we add the subjective assessment of the situation in which there is no group of people with power – that it would immediately cause chaos and destruction. As we have seen, such an assessment has been made part of the very definition of the word in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary.

The problem here is that some people have taken all this confusion to heart, and exploit it. There is today an international movement of people who are only interested in destroying and fighting – and they call themselves anarchists. These idiots have nothing to do with the anarchist tradition or the real anarchist movement, but they free-ride on its name and are pretty effective in destroying the word as well as the reputation of the peaceful anarchism movement.

When journalists report on the rioting by the free-riders they tend to augment the distortion through calling the people busy burning property and terrorizing people “anarchists.” They have of course nothing to do with anarchism as it was spelled out by Proudhon and the other “greats” of anarchism, but they are successful in mooching trademarks and symbols. There is a reason they often use well-known anarchist symbols like the circled A and the black flag.

Even though some people who are well-read on the anarchist tradition seem to join them at times (I guess to blow off some steam), the rioting freaks usually know nothing of the ideas or aims – or understand the reasons. They are “anti,” but don’t have a clue what they are pro.

The fact is that this “movement” of rioters are the Mr. Hydes of anarchism. They are not the original or the true movement; they are freaks out of control who have chosen a name that was already taken. And the worst part of it is that they are utterly statist in what they do and say – destruction, violence, and terror are all means of state and power, not of anarchism.

The movement following the tradition of Proudhon, Tucker, Kropotkin and others are the Dr. Jekylls. And as we know, people take notice of and fear violent action, whereas voluntary cooperation seldom hits the news.

The article, Blame Anarchism?, is available here.

[ad]We are, on a daily basis, fed the idea that the world is coming to an end – and it is all our fault. Global warming is going to cause a new cataclysm and we are all going to die. And the reason? We use technology, we lead good lives, and we emit CO2 when breathing out.

Al Gore is and has been preaching the end of the world for quite some time, and was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his long and hard work telling us we are destroying the world. He is investing a lot of time, effort, and money in making people believe he is doing everything to not make things worse; he is telling us what to do and wants to be seen as a good example. This is why his contract explicitly states that he refuses to be picked up at the airport in an SUV – he prefers a small car or hybrid – and he tries to avoid first class travel to save the environment through joining the crowd in coach class (or was it business?).

It is therefore not surprising that Gore was proud to announce that he took the electric train from Stockholm airport when having flown from Oslo to attend the Nobel Prize reception in city hall. However, he failed to mention that his luggage was picked up at the airport and transported in a Mercedes. (I guess he cannot carry such heavy luggage to and from the train because it would make him breathe too heavily.)

Also, this prophet of environmentalism, when leaving Stockholm for Brussels, was treated by the Swedish taxpayers to a flight with the Swedish government’s “private” jet. He cannot travel in an SUV because of the emissions, but a private jet for two or three people is probably very beneficial for the environment.

Meanwhile, the Swedish recycling disaster continues. It is definitely a system Mr. Gore would find commendable: it is thoroughly force-based, centralizes power, and distributes the main costs of the basically ineffective measures on common people. People like Gore and his friends in the top tier of government would not have to worry about the costs.

I write about this scam today on the Ludwig von Mises Instiutute‘s web site. In the article, which is available here, I show how this system has at best no effect on the environment (even if we accept the ideological claims that CO2 will effectuate the end of the world) while generating enormous costs for society. The purpose of the recycling system, like most of the current environmental mania, is of course to increase the powers of the state in a way that, at least at first glance, would seem “legitimate.”

After all, the environmental threat has a fantastic potential in causing universal feelings of fear, shame, and guilt – feelings exploited throughout the centuries by religious powers. But even though we have been through all this before, I doubt we have learned from history. It should be obvious from how the environmental threat is propagandized that it is but another “leftist” attempt to have us all give up whatever liberties and freedoms we still have left in order to further increase and centralize power.

As is always the case with centralized planning systems: they are good for one thing only – power and the powerful. And the environmental panic around the world will allow the powerful to look good – in our own eyes! – while stripping us from our liberties. So trust me in that it will not be long until President George W. Bush will “come to his senses” and sign the Kyoto Protocol. After all, he should not be able to resist the obvious temptation.

[ad]The apparatus of the state is all about power: it is established to maintain a hierarchical power structure in society and to keep a certain class’ privileges. For the sake of understanding what the state is about it does not matter whether the contemporary state is a remnant from when one tribe subdued another and made them slaves in order to maximize the extracted wealth, or whether the state is in fact a Hobbesian contractual agreement to avoid chaos and destruction.

I have discussed the improbability of the latter theory in previous texts, but it cannot be sufficiently stressed: if a society of men will degenerate into a chaotic war of all against all, then handing power to some of those men will not solve that problem. It can only make it worse – and at best no change at all is achieved. If people are fundamentally evil and respond mainly (or solely) to short term incentives, then a centralized power in human society is at least as destructive as the absence of one.

In the other case, if people are in fact fully able to peacefully get along and voluntarily interact and cooperate there is no reason for a state. If this is the case, then the state as an institutionalized body of coercion with sole objective to subdue, oppress, and exploit is necessarily and in every sense the negative of liberty.

Philosophically only these two alternatives are valid: either people can get along fine without being forced to (and then a state is not only unnecessary – it is destructive and oppressive), or they cannot (and then a state is not solution anyway). It thus does not matter what view of man you have, because in either case the state offers no solution and cannot be a tool for liberty.

The only way a state can be thought of as a solution is if we see humanity as fundamentally divided into a couple (or a few) collective groups with different sets of rights. In such a case it would be appropriate to advocate a centralized power such as the state, run by the only group of people wise enough to run it, and that could be used to force the stupid, ignorant, unintelligent, and violent class(es) to behave. This view of man is however racist in the sense that it identifies different groups of different value and different natural characteristics, and different sets of rights.

In a world such as that a state might even be necessary, since it might be the only way to protect the wise and peaceful from the violent and destructive masses. However, this is hardly a libertarian theory of humankind – it is the very opposite. And thus we should be able to conclude, from a fundamental assessment of how we view man, that the state is neither a necessary evil nor is in any way compatible with a libertarian world view.

Following this logic further we might wish to jump to conclusions a bit and claim that those engaging in politics, including those calling themselves libertarian, are necessarily racist in some respect. But as I said, this is probably to go a step or two too far.

However, the state as forceful power is essentially racist: it divides people into groups of different value and creates the illusion of group interests being incompatible and contradictory. The state creates a view of society as chaotic, and thereby it creates a need among the populace to be ruled by a power that has the might to destroy them – and, perhaps more importantly, has the might to destroy their enemies.

The state does not only mean power, it also means this power will always be used in the interest of those who keep it. It should therefore not be surprising or strange that challenging ideas are opposed, hindered, and thwarted whenever necessary. It also should not be a surprise that those with power would use whatever means necessary to maintain status quo – and to crush those who oppose power and how power is used.

The rules that we are told should limit the powers of the state and restrict how it uses force are not rules for the ruling elite – they are rules to feed the illusion of the state being “under control” by the people, and rules to keep challenging ideas and individuals/groups at bay. The rules do not really apply to those who have the power – they have the power to get away with what they choose to do. That is, after all, what power is about: to be able to use it as you want and to protect your privileges at the cost of others.

It is not surprising that a lot of people have fallen for this illusion of rules restricting the powers of the state, but it is sad that so many libertarians tend to embrace the concept of “constitution” as a way of restricting and limiting violent force. Such a set of rules will only keep the state at bay for as long as those with power agree the rules apply; whenever they no longer find reason to uphold such a constitution they will not.

I discuss this issue in other terms and connected with the ongoing Republican primaries in an article published today on Strike the Root. The article, called The Power to Get Away With It, brings up the issue of “vote fraud” in the primaries, and whether such fraud is indeed a factor.

[ad]In a recent article published on Strike the Root, I discuss another inconsistency in the anarchist movement. The issue discussed is, at least from a greater philosophical or political point of view, neither important nor big – it is about how anarchist web forums are managed. And the problem I discuss is that they are, in fact, managed.

Of course, it may not be a problem to moderate or censor or even require personal information when you have a forum. As I mention in the article, one reason such “managerial” behavior can be legitimized is, for example, if the anarchist believes in property. It is also, I guess, possible to claim the forum is in the “owner’s” possession and thus certain restrictions on what other people can do with it are justified.

However, the point I wish to make with this article is that if you are strictly against control, against property, against censorship and thus pro free speech, yet moderate your forum, then you are a hypocrite.

Despite this fact, and the point being pretty clear (at least, I would like to think so), there has been some criticism toward the article. I agree that it is probably not one of my better articles, it is absolutely not the best, but the point I try to make should be very clear. Also, it should be read in a context – I explicitly link to another article on a certain kind of “anarchist statism” – that many anarchists have a rather statist mindset, at least with regard to certain issues, and generally engage in what I prefer to call blueprintism.

The point I make is not that all forums aren’t the way I would like them. It also isn’t a disguised way of advertising my own very open anarchist forum on the Anarchism.net web site. I personally don’t care what people do with their web sites, but I do care about ideas and principles. As a single issue it might not be a big deal that an anarchist forum is moderated, censored, and only open to registered users. But from the point of view of principle it sure is.

Are these anarchists moderating and censoring the forum the same people who demand freedom to express themselves, to choose for themselves, and even “freedom” from private property? In many cases they are, yet they treat their web sites – especially the forums – exactly the way as they accuse capitalists of treating their property: controlling, excluding, and as a means to make a profit. Is this consistent? Hardly. Is it legitimate? From a principle point of view – absolutely not.

I doubt that many anarchists would agree on these three points. My guess is they can somehow rationalize the fact that they are using what they identify as property the same way as their “enemies” use their property. Perhaps they “must” moderate their forums in order to protect them from the state? Perhaps the capitalist system and the culture it feeds makes it impossible to have an open forum without it being destroyed by “capitalist lackeys”? But some anarchists, I believe, would still agree on some of the points – or maybe even all three.

Of course, most anarchists would not agree on the latter point even if they do agree with the first two. The reason for this is no doubt the use of the word “profit” rather than the real meaning of “making a profit.” As any economist knows, profit is not only a monetary concept; it means to be better off. It doesn’t matter in what way – even if it is but an illusion, you are still better off and thus you have made a profitable choice. It is a matter of utility.

To make a profit does therefore not necessarily mean that you make dollars, pounds sterling, or rubles. It could also mean you do something that gives you satisfaction to some degree – and the reason you do it is simply that it gives you more satisfaction than any other alternative use of your time and energy that you can think of. To moderate a forum no doubt has benefits for the person doing it: you get to be a central figure, a needed person, and you might even become a celebrity in a limited circle of users. And in the forum you have the power.

This is definitely a driver for many of the people having and running forums on the web. And it is certainly a driver for many of the people who run anarchist forums too. They are driven by the profit motive, and it is because of the possible profit they observed or identified they are doing what they are doing.

This should be hard to swallow for many an anarchist, and I would believe it is. This, in turn, sets very human protection mechanisms in motion and thus we will (I presume) hear a number of arguments why this is not true (there is no profit motive), but most such arguments will be but rationalizations of the choices already made. It is difficult to accept that you have acted in the exact opposite way you preach people should act.

Let me add that this should be even more difficult for an anarchist, since statists often find themselves in situations where there is nothing they can do but choose one alternative of many that contradicts everything they have said, written, and believe. The state is itself a contradiction of human life and liberty, which calls for contradictions also in the lives and thoughts of statists.

But the problem here is not the state – it is the dogmatic use of words. There is nothing inherently wrong in the word “profit.” It is only wrong in a certain context and used in certain connotations. Profit is a bad thing for many anarchists not because it means someone is being better off (even though there are some who seem to believe this is the case) – profit is bad because it is the result of acts of exploitation carried out in a system based on enforced privilege. The problem of profit is not what it is, but what it implies.

This is why so many anarchists (and others as well) tend to direct their energy to fight the wrong things. If capitalism is truly a system of privilege making a certain class able to make enormous profits through their “right” to exploit the masses, then it can only be a system existent in a state framework. Which means capitalism, in this form, is necessarily dependent on the state and a symptom of the state. If we were intelligent we would cure the disease, not work to remove the symptoms. The former could make real change, whereas the latter simply makes sure there is an eternal, never-ending struggle.

Actually, you might even claim that it would be dishonest or even hypocritical to try to remove the symptoms without trying to find a cure to the real problem. Painting over the stains does not remove the causes of the problem, just like putting another guy in office doesn’t remove the problems of statism. This equally true with the state and capitalism as well as with saying you are an anarchist while not acting like an anarchist.

Consistency is very, very important. It is not only important for the cause or movement, but – more importantly – it is important for your belief in self and your values. Your self esteem is based on you honoring your principles. I need not say a principled mind is superior to the mind based on contradiction and conflict. A principled position is a strong position – a moral position – even if you are alone against the world.

Also, dishonesty and inconsistency is a problem for the movement. If anarchists aren’t principled in both thought and actions they will try to rationalize their imperfections and the contradictions they discover. Such rationalizations make you vulnerable, and this may very well lead to dogmatism and factionism. And this is what we are seeing in the anarchist movement – people seem more interested in denouncing fellow anarchists who don’t agree to 100% with the views put forth than fighting the common enemy.

In this sense, it is extremely important to do away with “anarchist forum statism.” This may only be a small issue, perhaps even unimportant in itself, but it is a symptom of inconsistency and unwillingness to live by one’s principles. And the result of such inconsistency is an anarchist movement in constant war between factions rather than a strong, united movement that can actually make a change.

[ad]What is so special with a uniform? It is not the case that we generally respect a person in uniform – if someone approached us in the street dressed in a school uniform and ordered us to stand back we would probably not obey. At least, we wouldn’t automatically obey and make sure to quickly and silently communicate (using body language or whatever) that we have every intention of following orders.

Add a shiny plaque in the guy’s wallet and the reaction is the same. We would probably wonder what the hell is wrong with him and why he is flashing his wallet as if it gave him the right to boss us around. Many of us would think he was crazy, some might even think of calling for help. Some of use would definitely refuse to follow orders and perhaps even argue with the guy in school uniform and with shiny plaque in his wallet.

But if we change the design of the uniform so that it looks more “official” (which really means “intimidating” or “aggressive” or “militarist”) nobody would think the guy to be someone who had escaped a nearby sanitarium. Rather, we would accept the authority of the clothing and the shiny thing in the wallet at face value and obey the orders. How many of us would ask for this person’s authority, critically check what the uniform is about, or look closely at what the shiny thing in the wallet is?

Most people would definitely not do that. Especially if the person claims he is a “police officer” we would not even consider looking at the “badge.” Actually, we would accept his authority and obey whatever orders given without even thinking of checking the badge. The interesting thing is that most of us would probably not even have a look at the badge or even the uniform – if the “police” just sounds very sure and decisive we would obey.

This is a very interesting psychological effect, in part. We, as humans, tend to believe a person who tells us something if he or she makes the impression he or she is confident it is correct. It should be fairly easy to make people believe the most outrageous things – it has been done before. “This guy really knows what he is talking about,” is the general response.

Add to this the so-called “respect” we have been brainwashed with since we were infants, and it is easy to understand why people so easily can be told what to do and obey the orders of anyone. In any social context the person being a police officer would not be an authority – it is the uniform that makes him one. We have learned to “respect” (meaning obey) the state’s authority no matter who is calling for our “allegiance.” And most of us never question what we have been taught.

What we do not realize is that it is not the person’s natural authority that we accept and choose to take into account when we act (or don’t act). It is the uniform.

Part of the reason we immediately and without question do what we are ordered to do is of course fear – we know this person telling us he is a police officer will be protected by the state and thus can, with the help of the guns of government, lock us up more or less indefinitely – or use physical force only because he is not content with us or our actions.

But the underlying threat of the use of force, ultimately deadly such, is not the only reason we back away and obey whatever orders tossed at us. Many of us voluntarily choose to do things even though they can definitely mean we might get killed – we drive way too fast just for the fun of it, we stay out late in cities we don’t know very well, try foreign and domestic foods in restaurants where we are pretty sure we don’t want to see the kitchen. A lot of things we do can very well be the end of it all.

As the bad joke from medical school goes, the most severe condition a person can have is life – because it has a 100% death rate.

No, the reason we accept the stupidest orders from alleged police officers is not primarily that we fear them. Actually, there are numerous examples of people witnessing obvious police brutality where their victims are close to suffocating – without anyone doing anything. Is it because we fear the police officer, even if the people witnessing the brutality are 50-1? No, in most of these cases these people have much greater fear for the life of the victim. Yet they do nothing.

The problem is that no one takes the first step. If someone would take one step forward and state clearly that they will not allow for this brutality to take place many will most certainly follow their example. And they can all tell the same story in a court of “law” if there will be a trial. The police officer will definitely be acquitted and found guilty on all charges (if any), this is always the case (not surprisingly when the state is to judge whether the protectors of the state acted “justly”). But so would probably the people stopping the obvious brutality – it cannot be fear of repercussions that stops people from helping a fellow human being from being brutally assaulted and perhaps even killed before their very eyes.

No, we hesitate because we have been taught every day of our lives that we have a duty to obey when the state or the representatives of the state give us orders. And since we all hesitate nobody ends up doing anything. We all wait for someone to take the lead, to show us the way – to act in such a decisive manner so that we can interpret it as an order.

We are thus back again to authority and our desperate need for someone to show the way, for a leader – a Führer.

The centuries living under a state’s rule have made most of us so unable to act, and so uncomfortable with making decisions ourselves, that we are in every sense sheep looking for a shepherd. And we believe everybody else is also sheep, which means that if we actually do something we will be the only ones.

This is the most fundamental problem with the state system – we have lost the confidence in being men and women. We gladly accept authority wherever we see it and in whatever shape it is shown to us. It is, from this perspective, strange that kidnapped often end up working for the kidnappers against those who try to set them free? This “phenomenon” has been studied extensively, but no one has made the connection between our society of sheep and the need for authority that we have been force fed since we were born.

What this means is not only that we subject ourselves to authority and the state; it means not only that we subject ourselves and everybody else; and it does not only mean we feel uncomfortable with people without uniform (in whatever form) taking the lead. It means we have fundamentally accepted that some people have the right to do whatever they think necessary with other people’s lives. It means we have accepted inequality.

Inequality is necessary for every oppressive and exploitative relationship between people or groups of people. The sad truth is that there cannot be freedom as long as there are different “kinds” of people – with inequality there is no chance for freedom.

My latest article published on Strike the Root, Inequality Is the Threat to Liberty, discusses this relationship between inequality and freedom.